Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the two source domains, a maximum of 10 results, the returned fields, and that full text is retrieved via `fetch`.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the searched domains, then states result count and return fields, then routes to `fetch` for full content. No sentence is wasted and the parenthetical examples are useful rather than redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, result limit, returned fields, and the alternative tool for full content. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single `query` parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description does not add syntax, constraints, or interpretation beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific search action over two named sources: commerceos.pl blog articles and Commerce OS Integrator pages, with examples of page topics. This is much clearer than a generic search, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling `szukaj_artykulow`.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clearly indicates when the tool is useful by scoping the content it searches and by naming `fetch` as the way to get full content. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or direct comparison with siblings such as `szukaj_artykulow` and `pobierz_artykul`.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.